Ok since I'm noticing SCH seems to get a ton of hate, partially b/c it can nuke as well as main heal, making them do more than a WHM probably would for the duration of one battle, given that the SCH takes full advantage of Light and Dark Arts.

My Idea is that for SCH to get a stratagem that allows them to Erase all hate from any target in pt. Make it so this stratagem cannot be used in SCH's AoE effect, and to catagorize it under Enhancing Magic. Also set its recast timer to 3 Minutes allowing it to not be used too often or too little. Let me know what you think and how useful that would be.

meh i think it could be a good idea given more thought into its function and use i guess

my strategem idea was to make sch more useful in mana burn parties which is... making the next selected spell to be one tier higher making sch able to cast tier 4 nukes every four minutes or even have spells no one else have such as garity II, bind II, aspir II, drain II (i think drk have drain and aspir II, not sure) and spells that are more viable in situations such as sleep II now just like the aoe strategem i figure this strategem would be limited to certain spells especially ones that just arent even created

There is a big use to it, b/c one of the things I've exp is whenever I do AoE cure III to save the pt it would be helpful if I could use this new stratagem and erase all hate from me after I do this. Another thing yeah part of being a mage is controlling hate, but not every mage can do an AoE Cure III either, or Cure IV for that matter. Sure my idea needs a bit more thought put into it, but at least you get the gist idea.

Well at this point you cant use a stratgem on another player. I could actually see how it would be nice though. Allow the next spell casted to not give hate to the sch at all. Make it low level and give /sch another bonus. Could you imagine blm/sch doing Freeze with no hate once every 4 mins. Could be interesting. Of course the whole stratagem ability needs a bit of tweaking(i personally think 4 charges,10,30,50,70) but whatever.

Its a nice idea tho.

I understand, getting hate is a bad thing, but this could possibly solve the problem of not having any defensive buffs. And it will help schs walk the hate line even better.

There is a big use to it, b/c one of the things I've exp is whenever I do AoE cure III to save the pt it would be helpful if I could use this new stratagem and erase all hate from me after I do this. Another thing yeah part of being a mage is controlling hate, but not every mage can do an AoE Cure III either, or Cure IV for that matter. Sure my idea needs a bit more thought put into it, but at least you get the gist idea.

White Mages can AoE Cure III and Cure IV, and they've been doing it literally for years.

Learn to be a better mage.

[_] [_] [_] [_] [_] [_] [_] [_] [_] [_]

Now, snootiness aside, Players don't get free passes in this game. We'll never see something that flat out removes Enmity from a target, because that is counter-intuitive to the way that "hate" works at a base level.

Besides, as mentioned above, Strategems are SCH-target only. If you want to explore this idea for the game the rest of us play, you might want to consider it as a spell first. That way the existing strategems can modify it.

If you really think you've got a great idea, try forming it to other uses than just your own protection when you cast a poorly-timed Curaga. That will add weight to the discussion.

That's it. If I'm subbing White Mage, Curaga II is usually more than enough after a battle. If we were fighting something with damaging AoEs, I might hit the party with a Cure IV after the battle, but I don't have to worry about hate then.

Really, a no-hate Stratagem isn't necessary. Tanks keep hate off near full-heal Benedictions. Just play smart and you don't need a no-hate move. If you play really bad, just keep a Thief around.

Make it so this stratagem cannot be used in SCH's AoE effect, and to catagorize it under Enhancing Magic.

That's making it sound more like a Spell than a JA. So you're wanting more of an Adventurer's Dirge but to an extreme level of strength? I guess it wouldn't be that bad in early gaming when you can convince people that there's more to the game than everyone going in and getting theirs. Endgame, mob don't live long enough for it to matter.

Having it as a spell would be nice, as a JA? I dunno if I'd use a point for that unless it was very much needed.

____________________________

Quote:

Sorry, I didn't know anything in a Squeenix game can be considered common knowledge. :)

Now, snootiness aside, Players don't get free passes in this game. We'll never see something that flat out removes Enmity from a target, because that is counter-intuitive to the way that "hate" works at a base level.

Except for... something like snarl? Or super jump? Of course that leaves you with the tiny residual hate that any /ja creates, but would fit the bill for what OP is saying here.

Quote:

There is a big use to it, b/c one of the things I've exp is whenever I do AoE cure III to save the pt it would be helpful if I could use this new stratagem and erase all hate from me after I do this. Another thing yeah part of being a mage is controlling hate, but not every mage can do an AoE Cure III either, or Cure IV for that matter. Sure my idea needs a bit more thought put into it, but at least you get the gist idea.

I'm not saying it's a good or likely idea, but removing hate from yourself is not exactly groundbreaking territory, dragoons have been doing it literally for years, bst for months, and, come to think of it, thf have been removing enmity with accomplice for months as well. Granted, it doesn't remove all enmity, but it does

Quote:

flat out removes Enmity from a target

Now if you mean removes in the sense that it doesn't go anywhere else, well then obviously snarl and accomplice are out, but super jumps definitely fits the bill no matter what, and is the oldest of those ja as well.

Beastmaster and Thief both gained this ability recently in hopes that it would improve their usefulness in parties. In both cases, it transfers enmity to another character. The only one that removes enmity is Super Jump. That was, for most of the game's existence, the only ability that removed enmity. Super Jump "fits" with the Dragoon theme in the sense that by Jumping, the enemy can't attack you and will find a new target. While transferring or removing hate seems "tactical" in a manner that a Scholar would be able to do, it does encroach on a Thief's territory. I can't see SE giving Scholar Accomplice nor can I see them giving a move like Super Jump.

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

Huh? So THF exists to make up for stupid players?

I'm sorry, but I really think your line of reasoning is backwards. Instead of "encouraging poor playing", doesn't it allow DD to pump out more damage without pulling hate? If you have hate-controlling jobs, then you're a poor DD if you don't adjust your playstyle and don't hold back as much.

Yes, players need to learn how to hold back and control their own hate, but this "stupid players" argument is like saying that adding a Sleep spell to jobs would be redundant because people shouldn't be stupid and aggroing links in the first place.

****, if anything, the whole "BST, THF, and DRG already have a similar ability, so there's no way SCH should have it!" is ridiculous for the same reason. I mean, in the beginning of the game, BLM, RDM, BRD, and DRK could cast Sleep, so allowing any other jobs to do so would be redundant, right?

Jeez, SE sure is spoiling us by giving us all these options for crowd control! Before you know it, the entire player-base will be full of slow, lazy aggro-monkeys because they're all so used to sleeping links and not worrying about them in the slightest!!

If anything, this would add MORE strategy to SCH. Especially, if it's on a shared timer with other Stratagems and the SCH needs to prioritize which will best benefit the party. Anyone partying with the SCH will need to react to when/if the SCH uses such an ability, and adjust their playstyle accordingly.

Rigidly sticking to one playstyle is a sign of a poor player.

Adapting and reacting to what other people in your party are doing is strategy.

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

Huh? So THF exists to make up for stupid players?

Good job with taking the quote out of the context of the entire post.

Put simply so you can't confuse it: giving Scholar the ability to remove all of their enmity (or remove all of another player' enmity) encourages poor playing by the Scholar, Black Mage (chain nuking) and other players who should regulate their own hate generation. Thief has already been established as the "hate machine" in the sense of dictating where hate is placed (as show by SE's buffs to Trick Attack and addition of Accomplice). They can't remove the hate, just move it.

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

Huh? So THF exists to make up for stupid players?

Good job with taking the quote out of the context of the entire post.

Put simply so you can't confuse it: giving Scholar the ability to remove all of their enmity (or remove all of another player' enmity) encourages poor playing by the Scholar, Black Mage (chain nuking) and other players who should regulate their own hate generation. Thief has already been established as the "hate machine" in the sense of dictating where hate is placed (as show by SE's buffs to Trick Attack and addition of Accomplice). They can't remove the hate, just move it.

And good job completely ignoring my entire point!

Hate manipulation/ hate shedding isn't part of this game to make up for bad players. It's there to allow DDs to really push themselves to their limits. It's a form of party support. If you have an experienced BLM in your party, who realizes that he can only cast 1-2 nukes a fight without pulling hate and causing downtime, then if someone (say, a SCH) can suddenly use an ability that allows the BLM to cast an extra nuke, then the BLM can contribute more, and mobs die faster, and the tank still holds hate, reducing downtime.

Everybody wins! And it was all possible due to a job that had hate manipulation/shedding abilities!

Let's try another example, shall we? How about tanking options? A while back there were some experiments done with PUP tanking. With naturally high evasion, evasion bonus traits, and a puppet with a near limitless mp pool that can concentrate on healing them, they could make pretty good tanks, in theory. Unfortunately, it's difficult for the master to get and hold hate by itself. It's not because the PUP is a bad player, it's just that the PUP job is designed to have split hate between master and puppet so that neither draw the mob's attention.

Well, what if the party suddenly inculdes jobs that can manipulate hate? Holy ****! Suddenly a whole new option for party set-up has appeared now that PUP can reliably hold hate! Whole new STRATEGIES have opened up thanks to new party set-ups!

Hate management is a barrier in this game. Even after people learn to deal with it, having options to bypass it adds new ways to play- it doesn't neccesarily indicate that people are poor players.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but I've never gotten hate off doing anything to NPC in campaign. Which leads me to believe I could Cure IVga them and not get hate. In fact I have. Moving on.

Quote:

Put simply so you can't confuse it: giving Scholar the ability to remove all of their enmity (or remove all of another player' enmity)

Wait. I think people dont really understand how stratagems work.

Firstly, stratagems only take effect when paired with the proper spell, so it means the ja would only work when you cast the spell. Therefor it wouldnt "Remove all of their enmity" it would allow the next spell to be casted to Generate a lot less hate than usually. So a Cure IV ga would generate the hate of a Basic curaga.

I doubt the idea would actually get in the game, but as it stands its not a bad idea. And a fun topic.

#17CireXF,
Posted:Mar 06 2008 at 9:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gee, sport, maybe if you had actually read the entirety of both of my posts you'd realize what I was really talking about and that I wasn't taking your quote out of context at all.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but I've never gotten hate off doing anything to NPC in campaign. Which leads me to believe I could Cure IVga them and not get hate. In fact I have. Moving on.

Tidane wrote:

I can count the number of times I AoE'd cure spells during battle.

Uh, I said nothing about hate generation. The point made there was that I don't use AoE Cure IV whenever how much hate I generate is important. Moving on.

EarthSage wrote:

Quote:

Put simply so you can't confuse it: giving Scholar the ability to remove all of their enmity (or remove all of another player' enmity)

Wait. I think people dont really understand how stratagems work.

Firstly, stratagems only take effect when paired with the proper spell, so it means the ja would only work when you cast the spell. Therefor it wouldnt "Remove all of their enmity" it would allow the next spell to be casted to Generate a lot less hate than usually. So a Cure IV ga would generate the hate of a Basic curaga.

I doubt the idea would actually get in the game, but as it stands its not a bad idea. And a fun topic.

Beats the endless chain of wining threads.

What the topic creator suggested was removing enmity from someone. Yes, that isn't how a Stratagem works. I think that was already pointed out.

Cire wrote:

Gee, sport, maybe if you had actually read the entirety of both of my posts you'd realize what I was really talking about and that I wasn't taking your quote out of context at all.

Not only is your notion of hate management existing to make up for bad players asinine, but your other idea, that adding it to SCH would be redundant, just shows that you don't have a clue and you're talking out of your ***.

Maybe next time, if you take the time to actually respond to what's said, instead of making assumptions, you won't look like an idiot.

Cire wrote:

Huh? So THF exists to make up for stupid players?

I already responded to this, but I'm going to type some words here. If you haven't stopped reading by now, you probably should. I think I'll type another sentence or two just to make this post a bit longer. Maybe someone else will come in and add a tl;dr to it. I do like words.

Cire wrote:

I'm sorry, but I really think your line of reasoning is backwards. Instead of "encouraging poor playing", doesn't it allow DD to pump out more damage without pulling hate? If you have hate-controlling jobs, then you're a poor DD if you don't adjust your playstyle and don't hold back as much.

Yes, it would allow a DD to do more damage. That does not, however, mean that it isn't encouraging poor playing. A Thief manages hate. It places hate on someone or moves hate from one player to another. What was suggested here was a complete removal of the hate. In other words, replicating someone logging out. Do players do it? Yes, some do. Is it necessary? No, not in my opinion.

Cire wrote:

Yes, players need to learn how to hold back and control their own hate, but this "stupid players" argument is like saying that adding a Sleep spell to jobs would be redundant because people shouldn't be stupid and aggroing links in the first place.

Jeez, SE sure is spoiling us by giving us all these options for crowd control! Before you know it, the entire player-base will be full of slow, lazy aggro-monkeys because they're all so used to sleeping links and not worrying about them in the slightest!!

Personally, I would've said something about how nearly every melee DD can sub Thief and gain the ability to transfer hate. Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm not against a Stratagem that reduces hate for a single cast from the Scholar. I am, however, against an ability for Scholar that would remove all enmity from any player.

Cire wrote:

Hate manipulation/ hate shedding isn't part of this game to make up for bad players. It's there to allow DDs to really push themselves to their limits. It's a form of party support. If you have an experienced BLM in your party, who realizes that he can only cast 1-2 nukes a fight without pulling hate and causing downtime, then if someone (say, a SCH) can suddenly use an ability that allows the BLM to cast an extra nuke, then the BLM can contribute more, and mobs die faster, and the tank still holds hate, reducing downtime.

In a sense. That's what a Thief is for. A Thief can transfer the enemity from the Black Mage to himself while using Trick Attack to place more hate on the tank (which isn't extremely necessary, as a Paladin should be able to get to the hate caps with little trouble. Changing the way Stratagems work (to target other players) is not necessary, nor is the hate removal ability.

I mean no offense to you as a person, but the original idea from the topic creator is a bad idea, anyway you slice it. Turning Accomplice into a Strategem that we can use every (hopefully two minutes now) is not something that SE is likely to do. Accomplice is a recent addition to Thief that was an attempt by SE to bring the job back to...well, to be used.

Again, I'm not against a new Stratagem that reduces our hate generation for a cast, as I see how it could be useful for curing massive amounts of HP with little hate gain to the Scholar.

Yes, it would allow a DD to do more damage. That does not, however, mean that it isn't encouraging poor playing. A Thief manages hate. It places hate on someone or moves hate from one player to another. What was suggested here was a complete removal of the hate. In other words, replicating someone logging out. Do players do it? Yes, some do. Is it necessary? No, not in my opinion.

You still haven't explained how this is encouraging poor playing. DDs are there to deal damage, right? So how is an ability that allows them to do their job encouraging poor playing?

Yes, of course riding the hate-line, and doing your best not to draw aggro is something everyone should learn. But claiming that hate manipulation "encourages poor playing" is being incredibly short-sighted.

You might as well claim that Paladins "encourage poor playing" because they hold hate so well that DDs don't have to worry about holding back. Yes, of course that's a ridiculous statement- when the DD's aren't worrying about holding back, they can focus their efforts into pumping out as much damage as they can. Their playing isn't better or worse, they're merely shifting thier concentration to match the circumstances.

Is -enmity equipment in the game to make up for players who don't understand the hate threshold, or is it in the game to allow players more freedom to do their jobs without pulling hate?

These area all similar concepts. Dealing with enmity (whether by avoiding it, shedding it, or grabbing it) is a major strategic point of this game. You're simply ignoring the larger picture when you claim that hate manipulation "encourages poor playing".

Quote:

Personally, I would've said something about how nearly every melee DD can sub Thief and gain the ability to transfer hate. Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm not against a Stratagem that reduces hate for a single cast from the Scholar. I am, however, against an ability for Scholar that would remove all enmity from any player.

SE has been tossing enmity manipulation to several jobs recently. First, there's the BRD merit songs. Then PUP got Ventriloquy. Now BST has snarl. Really, enmity manipulation is probably the biggest support area that hasn't been fully utilized yet, and from SE's recent additions, I think they realize that.

Seriously, why should THF be the only job that can manipulate enmity? Sure, they can be the best at it, but by no means do they deserve a monopoly.

Giving enmity manipulation to SCH makes sense because it's something that's unique to a mage job, and because it opens up whole new ways to to play (which is something you'd expect from master strategists).

Quote:

In a sense. That's what a Thief is for. A Thief can transfer the enemity from the Black Mage to himself while using Trick Attack to place more hate on the tank (which isn't extremely necessary, as a Paladin should be able to get to the hate caps with little trouble. Changing the way Stratagems work (to target other players) is not necessary, nor is the hate removal ability.

Again, can you explain why THF or /thf should have a monopoly on hate manipulation? Every other aspect of this game can be fully covered by more than one job, even if they accomplish the same task differently.

I totally agree that the original suggestion would by awkward to introduce as a stratagem. I would even agree that adding a hate removal ability isn't "neccesary" either.

But it is definitely a useful ability, and it is a unique ability.

Quote:

Accomplice is a recent addition to Thief that was an attempt by SE to bring the job back to...well, to be used.

Well, giving such a spell/ability/whatever to SCH would only marginally infringe on THF's niche. While a THF would remain a support/DD, a SCH would be more of a pure support. Similar to how COR and BRD function- one can DD as well as support, while the other is more focused.

Quote:

Again, I'm not against a new Stratagem that reduces our hate generation for a cast, as I see how it could be useful for curing massive amounts of HP with little hate gain to the Scholar.

Yeah, as a stratagem, something like this would work better, as stratagems only work on the SCH who uses them. However, I disagree that hate shedding abilities for other party members is out of the question.

I'm not going through all this quote bullshit for you to miss the point again. It isn't the fact that they would have the ability to remove enmity, the problem is how much. Bad players are ones who would play like the Black Mages of old: chain nuke until they get hate, then run around crying for the Paladin to provoke. That's a bad player. If you're getting that kind of hate, someone isn't doin' it right, be it a tank or the mage. A job being able to keep a mob on them is not the same as removing the enmity from a player. One is a player utilizing his abilities (don't try and say you've never had a Paladin who doesn't use him MP). The other is a player not playing correctly. Again, the same thing I said before. Bad players are bad players because of their playstyle. This isn't to say every White Mage who pulls hate is a bad mage. Cures generate a lot of hate. On monsters where there are area of effect attacks and the mage is forced to keep all members cured, he will generate hate. Oddly enough, all my Linkshells have been able to deal with this issue for years without problem. Which is why I said it wasn't necessary. I want SE to focus on something that is useful, not just usable. AoE Gravity: cool? Sure. Useful? Very few situations.

I'm going to ask you a question that just might show you where my problem with this idea sits, because you haven't seemed to pick it up.

Why should Scholar be given an ability that completely removes enmity from a player whereas the closest a Thief can get is move half of the enmity to themselves?

I'm not going through all this quote bullshit for you to miss the point again.

You know, it's really difficult to understand whether you actually read anything because you're not responding to anything I posted at all. You keep regurgitating the same ridiculous stance that I've provided example after example showing how retarded it is. Personally, I'm getting sick of repeating myself, and I'm beginning to think that you're just too thick to understand the mechanics of this game, let alone have an opinion on it worth correcting.

Quote:

It isn't the fact that they would have the ability to remove enmity, the problem is how much.

This is the first time you've clearly stated your point. Until now you've just been on a tirade against hate manipulation in general "encouraging bad players". I've given example after example of why that statement is ridiculous, but now that you're changing your tune, maybe we can get somewhere.

You're right, allowing a SCH to remove ALL hate from a party member would be going overboard. The only thing I've been trying to point out is that some form of hate manipulation could be a possible addition to the job.

Furthermore, if the only thing your so adamantly opposed to is TOTAL hate removal, then the OP's idea isn't "bad any way you slice it"- it merely needs to be adjusted to be viable.

Your ending question to your post proves you're not even reading what I have to say, or you'd have realized that never once have I been discussing TOTAL hate removal. In every instance, I've described hate manipulation- not complete hate removal.

Quote:

A job being able to keep a mob on them is not the same as removing the enmity from a player.

They are both aspects of enmity control. One is direct, the other is indirect, but they are both related. If you don't understand that, then you have no business playing this game, let alone trying to comment on it's mechanics.

Quote:

Bad players are bad players because of their playstyle.

No, bad players are bad because they rigidly stick to one playstyle, no matter the situation. Good players know how and when to adapt themselves. Here, I'll add yet another example that you'll probably ignore:

A DRK has to play differently depending on what job is tanking his party. If there's a PLD tank, the DRK doesn't have to hold back as much as if he has a NIN tank. Furthermore, if he sees that the PLD isn't holding hate well, then he must adjust his playstyle further to compensate, resulting in holding back more.

A bad DRK is the one who will not take these things into account when attacking the mob.

Quote:

Cures generate a lot of hate. On monsters where there are area of effect attacks and the mage is forced to keep all members cured, he will generate hate. Oddly enough, all my Linkshells have been able to deal with this issue for years without problem. Which is why I said it wasn't necessary.

Just because one method exists to deal with such a situation doesn't mean that other methods can't be implemented as well. You're just being short sighted and closed minded. Your imagination is pathetic.

Besides, SE already stated that it wants jobs to grow horizontally, not vertically. This means two things: 1) jobs are going to have an expanded range of tasks they can complete. Inevitably, that means more jobs are going to have similar abilities- hence why I believe SE is currently giving more jobs enmity manipulation abilities. 2) Adding similar abilities means that SE is going to implement new ways to perform the same tasks. That's why we have a DNC, who is a healer, but does so in a different way from any other healer in the game. Sure, people were healing just fine before DNC, but that's no excuse for SE to never try something different.

Quote:

I want SE to focus on something that is useful, not just usable. AoE Gravity: cool? Sure. Useful? Very few situations.

And yet they added it, didn't they? What does that tell you about SE's thinking process? What does it say about the similarities between your priorities for FFXI and SE's priorities for FFXI?

Seriously, answer that because maybe if you do, it'll open your eyes to how things work in this game, and how they are likely to work in the future.

Quote:

I'm going to ask you a question that just might show you where my problem with this idea sits, because you haven't seemed to pick it up.

Why should Scholar be given an ability that completely removes enmity from a player whereas the closest a Thief can get is move half of the enmity to themselves?

I'm going to give you the common courtesy of specifically answering your question in the hopes that you'll have the decency to actually return the guesture this time.

I don't think they need an ability that "completely" removes enmity. I never once claimed that they did. This entire time I've been in support of an enmity manipulation ability, but I never once said it should remove ALL hate.

A pair of spells that function similarly to BRD's Adventurer's Dirge and Foe Sirvante would fulfill that nicely.

I made a comment about how it makes bad players, clearly stating why I feel that way. You made the decision to object to that. You are one of those people who offers "proof" which is, in fact, an opinion. You are not going to make me believe my opinion is wrong by pitting it against your opinion. Sorry, try again.

Again, you made it about bad players, not me. I may have made the initial comment (which is still true) but you continue to bring it up. I made my point that removing all hate is not going to work. You quoted the text and ignored it. Not my problem, I don't have a problem with you not being able to read.

Look, I said that my opinion is an ability for Scholar that manipulates the hate of another player is a bad idea. No matter what. I gave my reasons, you choose to ignore them. Not my problem.

Quote:

Your ending question to your post proves you're not even reading what I have to say, or you'd have realized that never once have I been discussing TOTAL hate removal.

This quoted text here

Quote:

Put simply so you can't confuse it: giving Scholar the ability to remove all of their enmity (or remove all of another player' enmity) encourages poor playing

was straightforward. I commented on removing all hate, as the topic creator suggested. You took it from there, not me.

Quote:

And yet they added it, didn't they? What does that tell you about SE's thinking process? What does it say about the similarities between your priorities for FFXI and SE's priorities for FFXI?

It tells us nothing. I said I want something useful.

Changing Stratagems to target other players is a bad idea.

Removing all hate from a player is a bad idea.

Creating a new Stratagem to reduce hate for the next cast is an acceptable idea.

Except I've pointed out several situations where you're opinion is clearly mistaken. If it doesn't apply to all situations, then your blanket statement is a false one. Plugging your ears and insisting doesn't make it any more true.

Except you've shown no situations in which my "opinion is clearly mistaken." You've pulled out situations where hate management is useful. My opinion was never that hate management is not useful. My opinion was and still is that this is not an ability for Scholar.

CireXF wrote:

You made 2 seperate comments in 2 seperate posts about how hate manipulation encourages bad players.

Finally, after the second one, I couldn't take your idiocy and had to point it out. I then described several situations where hate manipulation doesn't indicate poor players, and how it opens up new ways to set up parties.

Actually, my statements were to the effect of "play smart" and "if you play bad, just keep a Thief around." Then you gave two scenarios: the first was to enable a Black Mage to nuke more. The second was something about evasion tanking on Puppetmaster with the Puppet as a healer. The first is not a concern for me, as we have tanks and melees capable of keeping the monster's attention where we want it. The same can apply for the second situation.

CireXF wrote:

In that statement you are claiming that removing ALL enmity makes bad players.

Your later statment implies that it's the strength that makes it over-powered.

So, is it an overpowered ability, or does it make poor players? Take your pick. I've already shown that I agree it's overpowered, and I've shown that it doesn't neccesarily lead to poor playstyle.

Wow. You're really grasping at straws, aren't you? My statement states that allowing a complete enmity removal of a player encourages poor playing, not necessary bad players. My later statement states that the "hate management" job can't completely remove hate, so why should Scholar be given that ability? In my opinion, it shouldn't.

CireXF wrote:

Wow, how did I know you'd miss the entire point?

SE doesn't care what you, Tidane, want, because you have very different ideas about how this game works than SE does. As SE is the actual maker of the game, their views hold much more weight than yours do.

They may have made the game, but that doesn't mean they are the best at it. Players spend much more time with this game than the developers do. Players find mistakes that the developers every would have discovered.

So yes, they make the decisions. It is you, good sir, who missed the point. You attempted to turn my own statement against me and failed miserably. Why? Well, sport, because it is my opinion. It is how I feel the Scholar job should (or will) progress.

CireXF wrote:

Wow, did you totally miss the section where I agreed with all three of those?

Wow, did you totally miss the point everytime you replied, ignoring my stance?

You've posted several times that your "opinion" is that hate management exists in this game to make up for poor players. I pointed out situations where hate management is helpful, even when the players involved are skilled.

No, I didn't. I apologize if I gave you that impression, but I was only commenting on the possible implications of adding an ability to Scholar that removes all hate. There is no need for players to play with any finesse if they know the Scholar can just remove all their hate. Yes, they could do more damage. They could also do more damage if the mob locked onto the tank.

CireXF wrote:

Again, I'm asking- just because we have a way to do it right now, why does that mean SE can't add any NEW ways to deal with the situation?

SE can certainly add new ways to do things. That's one of the great things about MMO development. Our ideas aren't limited to what we know now. We can learn (be it from our mistakes or our players) and implement new abilities. The problem I have with this situation is that it isn't something new or inventive. The original idea was to double Accomplice and give it to Scholar. We both agree that's a bad idea. Where we clash is giving Accomplice to Scholar (correct me if I'm mis-understanding your suggestion for the enmity management for Scholar).

CireXF wrote:

This is what you just don't understand. Hate management doesn't encourage poor playing in any way, shape, or form. Hate management allows jobs more freedom to do their jobs. DDs can deal better damage with strong hate management. WHM can more comfortably cure people. Tanks can hold hate more easily and can conserve mp/JAs to continue the exp chain.

God knows why, but somehow you completely skipped over my explanation how DDs need to play differently in different situations. If suddenly, the DD finds itself in a situation where the tank has more hate than usual, then how is the DD a BAD PLAYER for taking advantage of that situation to deal more damage?

I skipped it because it isn't relevant and appears to be your attempt to make some other irrelevant point. Re-read prior statements, etc.

CireXF wrote:

Let that sink into your thick skull and maybe you'll come up with an intelligent answer.

CireXF wrote:

. . . aaaand I agreed that SCH shouldn't be able to manage hate better than a THF, so why are you still ******** to me about it?

Clarifying because you seem to have missed the point several times before. I wanted to be certain that you saw and understood.

CireXF wrote:

Just because you, Tidane, don't think something is useful, doesn't mean that it can't/won't be added. Just because you can't think outside the box doesn't mean SE is hampered by the same pathetically limited imagination.

SE thinks AoE Gravity will be a useful application for a SCH ability.

Tidane disagrees.

AoE Gravity exists in this game regardless of what Tidane thinks.

It looks pretty clear to me that you and SE aren't on the same page, bud. If you want to realistically speculate on what SE will and won't add, you have to take into account everything they've done in the past. You, sir, are not doing that at all.

I do take that into account and have said that it is what I believe should be done, not what SquareEnix believes should be done. The executives at SquareEnix wanted to push another expansion out. The content was lackluster, so they added new jobs in an attempt to move the focus away from the lack of content. They added things they thought would capture the player's attention. Look at the majority of the armor SE has put into the game: the good armor is situational while the bad is completely useless. Fluff.

CireXF wrote:

I was responding to 2 ideas:

1. Hate manipulation encourages poor playing.

2. Hate manipulation is not an apporpriate ability for SCH

The first is a grossly generalized and short-sighted statement on the game mechanics of FFXI. The second is a closed-minded opinion that is not based on anything other than personal preference.

If I've misunderstood either of those two ideas, feel free to correct me on what you really meant.

Your view of the first is a competent understanding of my statement, but a misapplication of the statement. It was intended for the Scholar ability as posted by the topic creator, not other hate management in the game.

The second is an opinion based on my view of the Scholar job as a combination of White Mage, Black Mage, and Geomancer.

On topic: AoE regen and stoneskin are better ways to control enmity accumulation. An enmity-altering charge could be interesting; PUP and SMN already have zero enmity abilities. Being able to clear someone's hate entirely is retarded though.

No, I didn't. I apologize if I gave you that impression, but I was only commenting on the possible implications of adding an ability to Scholar that removes all hate. There is no need for players to play with any finesse if they know the Scholar can just remove all their hate. Yes, they could do more damage. They could also do more damage if the mob locked onto the tank.

Here, just to try and get us on the same page, these are the comments that prompted my initial objection:

Quote:

Just play smart and you don't need a no-hate move. If you play really bad, just keep a Thief around.

Quote:

While transferring or removing hate seems "tactical" in a manner that a Scholar would be able to do, it does encroach on a Thief's territory. I can't see SE giving Scholar Accomplice nor can I see them giving a move like Super Jump.

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

While I concede that removing hate from party members doesn't dissuade ignoring the hateline, it certainly doesn't do anything to specifically encourage it either. Encouraging implies that someone not riding the hate-line will out-perform someone who is, or show some other performance bonus. What it comes down to, though, is that any DD who's actually paying attention will realize they don't have to hold back as much and will continue to meet, or exceed, the performance of the "poor player".

Does that make any sense?

I also just want to point out that hate manipulation in any form will only assist in "locking" the mob onto the tank, so the two situations aren't different at all.

Quote:

SE can certainly add new ways to do things. That's one of the great things about MMO development. Our ideas aren't limited to what we know now. We can learn (be it from our mistakes or our players) and implement new abilities. The problem I have with this situation is that it isn't something new or inventive. The original idea was to double Accomplice and give it to Scholar. We both agree that's a bad idea. Where we clash is giving Accomplice to Scholar (correct me if I'm mis-understanding your suggestion for the enmity management for Scholar).

I was never really specific on what I think would be an optimal enmity management ability, but simply a buff that either accelerates hate loss or slows down hate loss would seem approprite. It would be like giving the target an extra piece of -/+ enmity equipment. It's merely moving the hate threshold around instead of abolishing it completely.

See above on why your repeated use of the word "encourage" keeps setting me off.

Quote:

I skipped it because it isn't relevant and appears to be your attempt to make some other irrelevant point. Re-read prior statements, etc.

It's not irrelevant, it's an example of how people have to base their playstyle off of the hate threshold. Anything you do regarding hate management changes the hate threshold and requires you to adjust how you're playing. It shows that even intelligent players would benefit from additional enmity manipulation abilities in this game.

Quote:

The second is an opinion based on my view of the Scholar job as a combination of White Mage, Black Mage, and Geomancer.

Do continue with the attempts at insults, though. I'm having a blast.

I guess my view of SCH was more in line with SE's description of them as a strategist and tactician. While hate manipulation isn't exactly "new" ground in this game, it definitely is a rarely used aspect.

Like I pointed out before, there are a ton of jobs in this game that can Sleep enemies. SE keeps tossing sleep out like halloween candy. Lately they've also started to give out some enmity altering abilities, so it leads me to believe that they're looking to expand such an under-utilized aspect of the game. I think SCH is a better candidate for such an ability than any other job in the game right now, especially when SCH seems so unfocused. It really doesn't have a defined place right now, and an ability like this may start to solidify the job and make it stand out compared to other mages.

I have no personal strife with CireXF, I just disagree with his/her view on the topic at hand.

How the **** would you know what his stance is? Your responses indicate you clearly haven't read his posts.

You're right, I have "personal strife" with ******** who can't read. That doesn't make this post any better. If you're trying to impress us with your wonderful character or quality posts, you can start by READING the posts you're replying to.

In your first two posts, you implied enmity removal was mostly useless:

Tidane wrote:

I can count the number of times I AoE'd cure spells during battle.

Campaign Cure IVing the NPCs. Cure I whenever I was bored on Imps.

That's it. If I'm subbing White Mage, Curaga II is usually more than enough after a battle. If we were fighting something with damaging AoEs, I might hit the party with a Cure IV after the battle, but I don't have to worry about hate then.

Really, a no-hate Stratagem isn't necessary. Tanks keep hate off near full-heal Benedictions. Just play smart and you don't need a no-hate move. If you play really bad, just keep a Thief around.

I'd rather they give us something useful.

Tidane wrote:

Again, it seems like something to encourage poor playing versus strategy.

You continued to flap your ****-holster for half the thread, without justifying this point. CireXF asked you about a dozen times to defend your statement. When you finally did, you were a jackass and tried to pretend it was old news.

On top of this, you've been taunting him with sarcasm and condescending red text. Earth to asshat: this thread wouldn't be so long if it weren't for your idiocy. It's also clear you're in the business of covering your ****. Perhaps you thought your deaf shouting match would distract us from your oversights? Whatever. As I said, this thread blows. You've no right to whine about my threads, only to have a sandy ****** in your own.

Again, can you explain why THF or /thf should have a monopoly on hate manipulation? Every other aspect of this game can be fully covered by more than one job, even if they accomplish the same task differently.

Nateypoo wrote:

Being able to clear someone's hate entirely is retarded though.

Time to add unproductively and nit pick at these statements(Cire's more that Nateypoo).

Technically, DRG can shed from 35%-50% or all his hate via jumps, except the bare min hate an enemy will have to stay agroed :P

To reduce someone else's hate we also have the 2hr Super Jump(only half for the person we clear).

Lastly, can't a BST charm something and uncharm it?(this one is just needlessly reaching, as it is outside the scope of the conversation)

To reduce someone else's hate we also have the 2hr Super Jump(only half for the person we clear).

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Although, I was reffering more to hate manipulation for regular use. Doing it during a 2 hour is nice, but it'll happen so rarely that I think there's still room to add similar abilities to a couple other jobs.

In your first two posts, you implied enmity removal was mostly useless

You continued to flap your ****-holster for half the thread, without justifying this point. CireXF asked you about a dozen times to defend your statement. When you finally did, you were a jackass and tried to pretend it was old news.

On top of this, you've been taunting him with sarcasm and condescending red text. Earth to asshat: this thread wouldn't be so long if it weren't for your idiocy. It's also clear you're in the business of covering your sh*t. Perhaps you thought your deaf shouting match would distract us from your oversights? Whatever. As I said, this thread blows. You've no right to whine about my threads, only to have a sandy ****** in your own.

CireXF asked me to defend my statement and I did. My reasoning was clear in the first reply I made to CireXF. Maybe you missed that, but I feel Thief is the job that should have the best enmity related abilities. Keep ignoring it if you want.

Yes, I used red underlined text twice to place emphasis on my point. CireXF had added additional situations and arguments that weren't relevant to what I had originally said. I wanted the reason for my disagreement known. Continue trying to stir something up, I really do enjoy it.

CireXF wrote:

Here, just to try and get us on the same page, these are the comments that prompted my initial objection:

While I concede that removing hate from party members doesn't dissuade ignoring the hateline, it certainly doesn't do anything to specifically encourage it either. Encouraging implies that someone not riding the hate-line will out-perform someone who is, or show some other performance bonus. What it comes down to, though, is that any DD who's actually paying attention will realize they don't have to hold back as much and will continue to meet, or exceed, the performance of the "poor player".

The first comment could be interpreted in ways I didn't intend. My logic wasn't that Accomplice is only used on bad players. I was still thinking of an ability in the mode of a Stratagem that could be used more often than Accomplice. Not logical, as we have both agreed; that's too often. As it stands, Accomplice can be used to save a player who had to step over the line to keep the party alive or enable a DD to deal more damage. The second comment was still in that general line of thought. Hate removal in itself isn't detrimental, but the amount can be (which we both agree about).

CireXF wrote:

I was never really specific on what I think would be an optimal enmity management ability, but simply a buff that either accelerates hate loss or slows down hate loss would seem approprite. It would be like giving the target an extra piece of -/+ enmity equipment. It's merely moving the hate threshold around instead of abolishing it completely.

I was fairly certain that you hadn't given specifics, but I always could've missed it, since I clearly haven't read your posts. This idea is something I wouldn't be opposed to. I like how it's something that is in the game mechanics, but not already utilized by another job.

CireXF wrote:

It's not irrelevant, it's an example of how people have to base their playstyle off of the hate threshold. Anything you do regarding hate management changes the hate threshold and requires you to adjust how you're playing. It shows that even intelligent players would benefit from additional enmity manipulation abilities in this game.

It was irrelevant to my initial objection. I didn't want to back myself into a corner while my focus was on idea X but then have something else come back to bite me in the *** whenever a comment is made about how "I'm against hate management" or something like that. I attempt to do my best to focus on a specific topic because when you start looking at the entirety of things, there are always exceptions and ways to confuse something you stated.

CireXF wrote:

I guess my view of SCH was more in line with SE's description of them as a strategist and tactician. While hate manipulation isn't exactly "new" ground in this game, it definitely is a rarely used aspect.

Like I pointed out before, there are a ton of jobs in this game that can Sleep enemies. SE keeps tossing sleep out like halloween candy. Lately they've also started to give out some enmity altering abilities, so it leads me to believe that they're looking to expand such an under-utilized aspect of the game. I think SCH is a better candidate for such an ability than any other job in the game right now, especially when SCH seems so unfocused. It really doesn't have a defined place right now, and an ability like this may start to solidify the job and make it stand out compared to other mages.

I feel there are a few differences in the enmity-sleep argument, but I understand your what you mean. "Why is hate management required to be specific to a job when many jobs can sleep?" I don't disagree that an enmity-changing ability seems like something SE could give Scholar (I think I said that somewhere) as it is tactics, but it would act in a different manner or be weaker than Accomplice. For the first update, I feel this update will focus on fixing what many players have said are wrong with the job (Stoneskin, Blink, Charges&Timer, Helix Spells) before adding anything groundbreaking. Is an enmity-ability a possibility? Of course. There are many things that are a possibility, but we'll never see half of them.